9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (12) TMI 1091X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... onth to month basis on the basis of the cost of the goods for the previous month. When the valuation is finalised on an annual basis, there has been short payment of duty in some months as well as excess payment in other months. The appellant has already paid the excess duty wherever the value as per CAS-4 is more than the value adopted for payment of duty, but after adjusting the excess paid duty in other months. Such adjustment has not been permitted by the adjudicating authority even in the denovo adjudication. An identical issue has been considered by the Tribunal in the case of Essar Steel India [2016 (9) TMI 1175 - CESTAT NEW DELHI], in which the Tribunal held that duty paid in excess in certain months has been availed as credit by sister unit hence, cannot be adjusted towards short payment also not tenable. The appellant has claimed that they have already paid the short paid duty payable after deducting adjusting the excess. The adjudicating authority is directed to verify the same and recover only the differential, if any, after such adjustment. Appeal allowed by way of remand. - Excise Appeal No.50862 of 2017 - A/58465/2017-EX[DB] - Dated:- 20-12-2017 - Mr. ( ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion, which resulted into short payment of duty. 3. The Department was of the view that appellant will not be entitled to adjustment between short paid duty and excess paid duty, since no provisional assessments have been ordered in respect of the assessee. Accordingly, differential duty was demanded for various periods by disregarding the excess payments made by the assessee. The show cause notices for the various periods were originally adjudicated and the differential duty confirmed. However, when appeals were filed against such orders before this Tribunal, the matter was remanded back to the original authority for denovo decisions. Now, the adjudicating authority has passed the impugned order covering the periods from 2007-08 to 2013-14 in which he has confirmed the differential duty demands by taking cognizance only of the short paid duty but ignoring the excess paid duty. Being aggrieved, the present appeal is filed by the appellant. 4. With the above background, we heard Sh. Amit Jain, Ld. Advocate for the appellants and Sh. M. R. Sharma, ld. AR for the Revenue. 5. Shri Amit Jain, ld. Advocate explained the case of the appellant in detail. He submitted that inspite ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by the Tribunal in the case of Essar Steel India (supra), in which the Tribunal observed as follows:- 5. We have heard both the sides and perused appeal records including written submission. The admitted facts of the case are that there is no sale of iron ore concentrate by the appellant and clearance to sister unit for further use is subjected to excise duty and valuation for such duty has to be worked out in terms of Rule 8 of Valuation Rules, 2000. The central point of dispute is the frequency or periodicity of costing in terms of CAS-4. The appellants followed different value during the same financial year based on revision of costing within the year more than once. The Revenue contended that the costing should be annual basis and, hence, during whichever month the value happens to be less than the average annual cost, duty was confirmed. 6. First, we consider the appellant s plea regarding the transaction value arrived at based on costing should be at the time of removal. It was submitted that the scheme of things for excise duty purposes in terms of Section 4 and Rules made thereunder and Central Excise Rules, the duty liability based on self-assessment has ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dvisable to prepare a fresh certificate of cost of production based on the audited accounts of the period for which the goods are cleared and the differential duty is paid or taken credit of as the case may be. In such circumstances, it is advisable to compute the actual material cost as per the issue valuation adopted by the assessee for material issues. Further, in the FAQ on CAS-4 the ICAI clarified that cost determination of a product is always for a period and computed on the basis of actual accounts of the company. The costs so determined should be actual cost reconciled with the audited accounts of the company after the accounts for the period is audited. 9. On perusal of the guidelines by the ICAI, we find while arriving at costing based on CAS-4 the correct method will be to determine the same based on actual audited data as per the accounting year of the company. To that extent we find the CAS-4 cost price arrived at on annual basis by the Revenue is correct procedure. 10. The next issue for decision is on the quantification of differential duty. Even though there is no provisional assessment in the present case, the duty determination on the inter-unit tr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
